Gay marriage has its day in court (7 letters)

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality. It has been asked to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a federal law and a state constitutional amendment with respect to granting the rights of marriage to same-gender couples. This is uncharted water, and for some of the justices, the making of a decision will be tough, but that’s why they are there. We look to them for guidance, and they have historically been asked to make decisions of great importance when such matters were not specifically mentioned in the original Constitution. The worst thing the Supreme Court could do, for either side, would be to shirk its duty and fail to resolve, for now, the two cases before it. The court did not seem to have any trouble ruling on Colorado’s infamous Amendment 2, which was predicated on the same premise of law.

Joe Felice, Aurora

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

The discussions of gay-marriage rights, the Defense of Marriage Act, and California’s Proposition 8 are rooted in a scriptural definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Isn’t this an intrusion of religious values into state functions and a violation of separation of church and state? The state should only issue and recognize civil unions between legally consenting adults, concerning legal, not scriptural, issues such as property ownership or power of attorney. A “marriage” should be conducted by your spiritual leader for you and your partner of choice, just as your guests are of your choice. The government has no business in that marriage or defining a marriage.

Thirty-five years ago, immediately after our Presbyterian church wedding, the minister had us sign legal documents. The wedding ceremony was a Christian-based spiritual exchange of vows, but the documents signed had a vastly different purpose and legal significance. We’re still married.

Bill Conrod, Grand Junction

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

Those who argue to uphold California’s Amendment 8 are simply on the wrong side of history. They’re as wrong as those who argued against Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia (interracial marriage).

Any gay couple who wants to get married can have one of my unused turns. I wasn’t very good at it anyway. I’m sure they can do better.

Tomas Romero, Commerce City

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

My wife and I are 100 percent behind the equality of gay couples to enjoy all the same joys and sorrows that come with being a devoted couple. You are equal but not the same. I can hear the screams of “bigot,” “hater,” “homophobe,” etc., that usually come when someone offers an opinion different from yours.

You are still not the same as my wife and me. You are same-sex couples, plain and simple. Your commitment to each other is a wonderful thing. You deserve the same benefits and pitfalls my wife and I enjoy and bemoan. But you don’t deserve the word “marriage.” You are equal but not the same. Call your union something else.

“Marriage” is for one man and one woman. Why is that so hard?

Darin Garrett, Centennial

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

Who will defend the classic Anglo-American common law tradition of defining marriage as a contractual promise or covenant between two individuals and confirmed in civil law, regardless of what religious assumptions or ceremonies surround the event? That was the basis to make breach of promise a legal offense. The male Catholic majority of the U.S. Supreme Court naturally defines marriage in its procreative potential (hence no form of contraception), but to do that is to privilege their religious views and not the long history of U.S. common law. Moreover, to proceed in that direction symbolically nullifies the authenticity of marriages that do not fulfill a procreative function from choice, age or physical disability. With alternative ways to conceive, added to the presence of children by adoption or from a prior heterosexual relationship, same-sex couples already in practice fulfill the procreative purpose. Catholics can go on sanctioning their own marriages between faithful heterosexual members since the church does not in any event recognize non-Catholic unions of any sort.

Will Gravely, Littleton

The writer is a professor emeritus of religious studies for the University of Denver.

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

A sign held at the Supreme Court gathering last week said: “Holy Matrimony for All.” “Holy” is not set by any court, legislature or popular vote. It is only from God, who instituted marriage. His way is one man and one woman, and no vote or discussion by anyone on Earth will ever change that.

Sue McNaughton, Aurora

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, during Proposition 8 testimony, repeatedly asked [anti-Proposition 8 attorney] Ted Olson, “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying?” Olson finally relented and said “It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control … .”

Since when in our society has “an uncontrollable characteristic” in an individual been the grounds for equal protection under the law?

Olson went on to say, “There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

Evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society: what a concept!

Arnold Good, Fort Morgan

This letter was published in the March 31 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

And those who oppose and support “gay marriage” will have THEIR “day in court”…..before God……just as those who oppose and support “abortion” will…….just as those who oppose and support pornography will…….and just as those who oppose and support GOD and HIS WORD will…….and just as those who oppose and support teaching God’s children about Him and His Word…….will.

And……everyone….including the deceivers and the liars…….will get what they deserve……..forever and ever and ever.

peterpi

Oh, baloney.
You compared gay marriage to pornography. Then threw in deceivers and liars.
Pat yourself on the back as much as you want, but you’re as neutral as Phred Phelps.

thor

I hope if anyone reads robt’s post that they realize we are not alike on this issue.

Seriously? This coming from the person that thinks his religion has carte blanche on the the word “marriage.”

We live in a secular nation, thor. This country was founded on Freedom. One of those freedoms is freedom of religion. Another freedom that is so often “ignored” by people like you is freedom FROM religion. Yes thor, we have the freedom to NOT believe as you believe.

You might not support bobby numbers with all his twisted notions of god but you’ve used religion as an excuse to perpetuate homophobia, claiming that the term marriage belongs to only the religious amongst us.

Gay people have just as much right to marry as straight people. At one time not to many decades ago, it would have been illegal for me to marry my spouse because we’re not of the same race. Should we just go back to those times as well>

thor

Why do you say things that I don’t dispute as if I do? I believe all of this and have supported it in my posts- “We live in a secular nation, thor. This country was founded on Freedom.
One of those freedoms is freedom of religion. Another freedom that is
so often “ignored” by people like you is freedom FROM religion. Yes
thor, we have the freedom to NOT believe as you believe.” So, do you think you have a corner on these thoughts or can I get in on it?

Now, about your uninformed point about homophobia: The Scriptures aren’t homophobic, so why should I be? Let me help you one more time. Homophobia, because it has the “phobia” in it, means an irrational fear of something. Can you get that through your thick skull. There is no reason to be afraid of gays. Are you worried that, by touching them it might rub off on you? My gay friends, including one on facebook, would be shocked to hear anyone accuse me of being homophobic. So drop that as a conversation killer or way of marginalizing me, it won’t hunt.

Do you know what carte blanche means? If so, why did you use it to talk about marriage and religion? Marriage may have started in the church, as an institution ordained by God. But it has long ago left that barn. However, up until recently, it has been reserved for one man and one woman by society. But no one has a right to marry under the Constitution. And it was much more aggregious to not let people of two races marry. That was always wrong.

peterpi

People dispute whether marriage was started by the church. There are sources who claim the State performed marriage rites, that the Church then horned in on.
Carte blanche: You are the one saying that the word “marriage” is the exclusive province of houses of worship.
I’ve heard political leaders, members of Colorado’s legislature, say “We’re sympathetic, but don’t call it ‘marriage’!”
I don’t get it, but if a word is a stumbling block, let’s remove the stumbling block. Call it “civil unions”, have the State confer it on all couples legally qualified to receive it, have all states recognize civil unions granted by other states, per Article VI of the US Constitution, and be done with it.

ThePyro

I’m definitely with you on the last point, pete…and, in fact, believe that bleeth and thor should employ a version of it.

bleeth and thor: thor is linguistically correct in that any phobia contains an irrational fear at its heart. thor believes he has a rational reason for his perspective, and whether his perspective has a phobia component is unprovable in this forum. So bleeth – call him a bigot, which is linguistically accurate, and get past that part of the debate….the back and forth over terminology is making my head hurt.

thor

If I feel homosexuality is wrong, but I still have homosexual friends, and anyone thinks I’m a bigot, then they need to look at themselves more closely.

TomFromTheNews

Just remember when you say, “homosexuality is wrong” that you are also saying “homosexuals are wrong” because one’s sexuality is an integral part of who we as humans ARE. It is no different than saying, “left-handedness is wrong” or “having green eyes is wrong”. If you’re honest, you will look your gay/lesbian friends in the eye and say, “There is something WRONG with YOU.”

I’m not calling you names, but be aware that this is how your comment comes across, and it’s not very “friendly”.

peterpi

I agree with you somewhat, but:
Suppose someone thinks homosexuality is wrong from a religious perspective, for example, but thinks society ought to treat GLBT people equally, wouldn’t dream of discriminating against them in his or her business, etc. There isn’t that much more that we, in this society, can do.
I think there is a quote attributed to Martin Luther King, and I’m badly paraphrasing, to the effect that he couldn’t make someone like him or other black people, but he could try to get government to prevent that someone from physically attacking him.
Certain people will never see gay people as normal, never see gay couples similar to heterosexual couples. But, if they treat gay people with dignity and respect, don’t discriminate, etc., in this society, how much more can we expect?

TomFromTheNews

I agree with you here, pete. But that doesn’t change what I said. I don’t care from what “perspective” someone thinks the fact (I call the “blessing”) of my sexuality is “wrong”. THAT’S wrong because they are using religion or upbringing or fear or whatever to say that I’m somehow “wrong” (translated = “sick” “perverted” “dangerous” “less than”, etc., etc…what Justice Ginsberg might term a “skim milk” person from last week’s SCOTUS oral arguments.)

Yes, I too would like the government to prevent anyone from oppressing me in any aspect of my life. But the big job for the human race is to finally get to the place where my sexuality is of no more importance to others than the immutable characteristics I listed.

I think I can “expect” conscious effort in that direction, don’t you?

peterpi

We can all dream of the day when all people are respected by all other people. Or, at least, I can dream of it, anyway.
But that doesn’t change the here-and-now that people are going to dislike me because of my religion, my sexual orientation, my political views, my speaking or writing style or lack thereof, etc.
I mostly can’t help that. But, what I can try to do is overcome my own dislikes of various kinds of people, and create a society where, regardless of my or another person’s dislikes or prejudices, I am treated fairly in public transactions and I treat others fairly.

TomFromTheNews

I still agree with you, pete. I guess I’m just a dreamer, maybe “crazy” in a Don Quixote kind of way. But if we don’t shoot for the stars, we won’t land on the moon.

ThePyro

I think the difficult part of that, Tom, is that the people being asked (or, in their opinion, forced) to move in the direction you’re promoting aren’t getting the same in return. The ongoing battles between opposing views on these boards are reflective of that – there are just as many that are just flat disdainful of the overtly religious as the other way around, and they have no more intention of respecting the religious types than the religious types have of respecting (insert whatever “immoral-in-their-opinion” topic we’re discussing). Until both sides are willing to give a little, I tend to, unfortunately, think your expectations are going to go unfulfilled.

thor

bad comparison, being left-handed, to someone with a dad, daughter and sister that are southpaws.

peterpi

How is it a bad comparison. Haven’t left-handed people been labelled wrong, unnatural, etc.?

thor

forget about left-handed people. homosexuality isn’t either nature or nurture, right or wrong. It is sin. On Good Friday, Jesus, in His love for homosexuals, died on the Cross so that they could be forgiven for sin. He rose from the grave on Resurrection Sunday so that they could have power over sin and be delivered. Only a loving God would do that for anyone and neither I nor God are bigoted toward homosexuals nor are we afraid of them. We care more for them than either you or Tom or Bleeth ever will because we don’t want them to die in their sin but to accept Jesus into their lives and find a peace that will pass all understanding.

peterpi

You completely missed my point. So be it.
Gay people have had enough of your kind of “love”, “mercy”, and “charity” hurled at them.
Jesus died for sinners, or at least I’ve heard that Christianity teaches such.
All people are sinners, or so I’ve heard any number of sidewalk preachers, televangelists, and rescue mission preachers preach. We’ve all fallen short in the sight of God.
Therefore, Jesus died, not just for homosexuals, but for everyone. Even me.
And you.

thor

100% correct. And i was the worst of sinners. Probably worse than someone whose only sin is homosexuality. I was a drunk, joint smoker, Playboy buyer, fired from jobs, hippie, married to a woman who had two kids out of wedlock.

TomFromTheNews

There is nothing wrong with being left-handed or green-eyed or gay. That’s what I was trying to show: we have no reasonable control over these characteristics.

ThePyro

Every time I look at myself more closely, I get all queasy…which is the same reaction a lot of the women I’m around have for some reason…hard to explain.

But to your point – I wasn’t calling you a bigot…just trying to move a conversation along. It was getting off-point and linguistically painful.

bleeth

Marriage most certainly did NOT start in a church as an institution ordained by god.

I knew you’d invoke your imaginary gay friends. Do they support your homophobia? And, yes it is homophobia, as you constantly use the bible as an excuse to promote this nonsense.

My belief is that god is all inclusive. She would never exclude someone because of how they were born.

thor

Another marginalizing tactic is to say “I knew you’d invoke your imaginary gay friends.” You talk about the Bible, but you don’t know what it says. Jesus was both loving and tolerant or He wouldn’t have died on the Cross for homosexuals. He had a prostitute and a tax collector among those following Him. You really show a lack of tolerance in your words. It would appear that soft core bigotry applies to you as well.

TomFromTheNews

“Jesus was both loving and tolerant or He wouldn’t have died on the Cross for homosexuals.”

Who asked Jesus to die on the Cross for me? No, thank you!
Who asked you or anyone else to be “tolerant” of me? What arrogance!

“The religion of Christianity
Is mixed of sweetness and cruelty.
Reject this Sweetness for she wears
A smoky dress out of hell fires.

Who makes a god, who pains him thus?
It is the Christian religion does.

Oh oh have none of it,
Blow it away, have done with it.” Stevie Smith, 1902-1971

Melankomas

Speaking of pornography, there is a new study that shows the more pornography a straight man looks at, the more likely he is to support gay marriage. Perhaps this is the “love” that Chicken Sandwich (a reference to Chick-fil-a perhaps?) is wanting to see in the name of Jesus.

GregoryR

You got a source on that? Sounds like a stretch to me. I don’t look at porn at all yet I support civil unions.

thor

On this we can agree also.

Melankomas

Google “porn and gay marriage.” The first link is the Huffington Post referencing an article in the Boston Globe. In fact at least all the links on the first page are about the same story and there are 109 million hits using those words. And it wasn’t talking about civil unions but gay marriage.

GregoryR

It also says education is a factor. I’d need to read the whole study and look at its methodology. It’s interesting that its author goes to lengths to disassociate it from a similar assertion made by the author of another now discredited study. This doesn’t pass my smell test that’s for sure. I could argue that watching porn also leads to people not being hit by buses, watching MSNBC, listening to John Caldera or to any number of things. Anyway I’m not sure sure what your point was in bringing this study up other than to make a veiled accusation of immorality of some kind.

peterpi

Listening to Jon Caldara will get me hit by a bus?
It’s a good thing I don’t pay any attention to him, then.

GregoryR

No, no watching porn will lead to listening to Caldera, supporting gay marriage/civil unions, not getting hit by the bus and possibly clubbing baby seals.

Melankomas

Your comment is not unexpected from a libertarian. However, I do detect a hint of defensiveness. Was I making a veiled accusation of immorality? I hope not. It was a specific accusation that immorality leads to anything goes which I know is okay in your book. As I said before, next up, polygamy and if love is the only requirement for marriage, why not multiple partners at the same time?

GregoryR

Why not legalize polygamy? It would at least give recourse to a great number of women who now live in the shadows and have none. I’m not defensive. I just prefer people be direct as opposed to using veiled accusations, which you indeed did.

peterpi

Next Melankomas will be mentioning horses and dogs.
These people always have vivid imaginations.

Chicken Sandwich

So much hate in the name of Jesus.

I feel sorry for those of you that believe you’re getting into “heaven” with attitudes like yours.

TomFromTheNews

In the movie “Hannah and Her Sisters”, one character rightly observes, “If Jesus came back today and saw what people were doing in His name, He’d never stop throwing up.”

peterpi

Or as I like to put it,
The shortest sentence in the English-language version of the Christian Scriptures/New Testament is “Jesus wept.” And Jesus still weeps.

ThePyro

As a wayward Lutheran that’s tried to read the Bible from religious, historical and fictional perspectives…I really do wish those that assert that “marriage is from God” would just stop using the argument. Because there’s a whole litany of things that could be deemed “from God” that we now argue against in the name of morality…polygamy, incest/near-relation endogamy and domestic abuse just to name a few. This isn’t about apparent hypocrisy, though…it’s about debate logic – why would you desperately cling to an argument that’s so easily thwarted by your opponent, particularly using your own reference manual?

TomFromTheNews

As appalled as I am at the ramblings of Mr. Garrett (who shamelessly resurrects the “separate-but-equal” language of Jim Crow) and Mr. Good, I do have to admire the cojones of people who can look directly at loving, committed couples, (perfect strangers, mind you), and say, “…you don’t deserve the word marriage.” The reason is that “you are same-sex couples, plain and simple” as if that settled that. Ipso facto. There is simply no reasoning with people like that.

And Mr. Good, when you ask, “Since when in our society has ‘an uncontrollable characteristic’ in an individual been the grounds for equal protection under the law?” one can easily cite women’s suffrage or the Civil Rights Act for the benefit of those of you who are blind to two of the greatest social justice issues of the 20th century. And there are many others.

Remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

guest1

“There is simply no reasoning with people like that.”
Yup….there’s nothing going to change those closed homophobic minds who hide behind religion to justify their prejudice. But they’re frightened because they know the world is changing and they can’t stop it. Time for them to go out to pasture!

Man_With_Chalk

“But you don’t deserve the word “marriage.” You are equal but not the same. Call your union something else.”

Let’s compromise. Straight people can have “marriage” and gay people can have “Super Marriage.” I don’t think those are easily confused, do you?

http://www.facebook.com/stephen.blecher Stephen Blecher

The tide has turned in favor of allowing gay marriage. The proponents see it as a civil rights issue, and social conservatives see it as a religious issue. The Supreme Court is a secular institution, so I can’t see them upholding all the prohibitions on gay marriage.

peterpi

Wait for it.
The Supreme Court is 9 people, each with their own worldview. We know how, theoretically, the Supreme Court is supposed to act or rule, but theory often smashes against reality. This is the institution that gave us Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson in the past. People’s worldviews can always dress itself up in legal or precedential garb while justifying and rationalizing itself.

ThePyro

Good call, pete…the Supreme Court has “shocked” all manner of pundits, legal specialists and public advocates since its inception. Predisposing an outcome based on one’s perspectives or prejudices, at least with the Court, is a fool’s game.

peterpi

Yep.

http://www.facebook.com/carolyn.sommerville.7 Carolyn Sommerville

First, and most importantly, the truth is that marriage has nothing to do with any plan by God. Marriage’s primary purpose going back 4,350 years was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his heirs and no one else’s. It’s literally a man-made, macho concept. Nature has no such rules. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Society has changed, and women are no longer considered ‘property’ of a man. Since it’s not about children anymore, and gays want to be be married and have equal rights as married people, financially and socially, there is no logical reason they should not have the right to marry.

peterpi

4,350 – 2,013 = 2537 BCE
4,350 years is a highly specific number. To what are you dating your figure?
I totally agree with the logic of your main argument, however..

TLC

Now that we’re returning to “nature’s rules,” kinda like cats and dogs procreate, marriage is unnecessary. Of course, that means most kids will be raised by single mothers with absent fathers–because that’s nature’s way. That’s not necessarily good for kids, but as you say, “it’s not about children anymore.” It’s about what women want. And since marriage no longer serves a purpose, and its benefits to children are irrelevant, there’s no reason any two consenting adults can’t marry. But one question: if marriage serves no purpose, why do we give married people any special rights or benefits? Why not eliminate those and treat everyone exactly the same?

peterpi

Oh, for crying out loud, so it’s either heterosexual marriage for life for the purpose of raising God-fearing children … or no rules at all?
No in-between, eh?
Maybe we should ban heterosexual couples who cannot or will not produce God-fearing children from marrying?
What nonsense.

TLC

She made the argument “nature has no rules” and you agreed with her. Without rules, there’s no marriage. Instead, we procreate as the tomcat procreates. That’s nature’s way. Marriage is not nature’s way. It is an artificial way, devised by society for a purpose. But the original poster doesn’t believe in that purpose. Because she doesn’t believe in that purpose, she believes there’s no logical reason gays should not marry. But that’s really an anti-marriage argument in favor of marriage–which makes no sense.

peterpi

She made the argument that nature has no rules about patriarchy, which in her view is what marriage was originally about.
You’re the one who made it a “heterosexual marriage or complete anarchy” argument.

Melankomas

You make the case for people who ask the question how does gay marriage hurt heterosexual marriage. First you thought the state should only do civil unions and now you are thinking we should ban heterosexual couples who can’t or won’t produce children from marrying. Next up, polygamy. Keep it up Mr. Pi. You are making the case better than Robt is for why gay marriage is a bad idea.

peterpi

I still think the state should only do civil unions for all couples.
You’re the one arguing marriage is about kids. So if marriage is about kids, then heterosexual couples who can’t or won’t have kids shouldn’t be married, right?

GregoryR

Huh? Really? If memory services even matriarchal societies have marriage of some form. Not sure if you factored that one into your logic stream.

Gene Wisdom

Romans Chapter 1:27 Leviticus Chapter 20:13

peterpi

Go ahead and have your house of worship follow that. Feel free to refuse your rites to gay and lesbian couples. No one is stopping you.
But, neither Romans nor Leviticus nor Exodus nor Corinthians, nor the 62 other books, are part of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Code of Federal Regulations, or the US or Colorado constitutions, are they?
Practice your religion as you wish, but it does not have exclusive dominion over secular society.

Gene Wisdom

Do you think we are here by accident? We are here to choose. Have a nice trip.

peterpi

Thank you. I will!

GregoryR

I’m here because I logged on to the DP’s website so I’d say I’m here by choice.

GregoryR

I’m curious if we have to follow all of the Levitical rules. You know like the ones against usery, forgiveness of all debts after a set period of time, crop rotation, leaving sections of fields for the poor to glean, not eating cheeseburgers and so forth.

peterpi

Those rules might affect the people who would use Leviticus for their own purposes, so those rules don’t count.
Strange how some Christians say the Law no longer applies to them while they apply it very selectively to others.

GregoryR

Its Leviticus buffet style, although buffets probably violate Levitical law in some way.

peterpi

Only if you mix dairy products and meat products, or serve pork or shellfish.
I’ve always thought vegetarians would have the easiest time following the Levitical or Halachic dietary rules, but sadly, Orthodox Jews consider that to be cheating, since it avoids the dietary laws completely.

GregoryR

I’m doomed then. I smother my fried chicken with mac and cheese. Seriously though I think your right that vegetarians would have an easy go of it, vegans in particular. It’s not easy following dietary restrictions. I’m two weeks into the Orthodox Lenten fast and I’d kill for a burger. Instead I have to settle for Boca, which one guy I spoke with thought defeated the purpose of the fast, or more like PB&J.

peterpi

I’m in no position at all to tell you how to observe your Lent, but I agree with your friend, especially since Boca Burgers attempt to taste like beef burgers. Now, a veggie patty that was a good protein source that made no pretense about being a veggie patty would be different..
It’s like the New York guys who created a vegan, non-dairy “cheesecake” that they claimed looked and tasted like the real thing, so that Orthodox Jews could have meat with “cheesecake” afterwards. Technically, they are following the letter of the dietary law, but violating the spirit, IMHO.
Those kinds of rules are more about discipline, IMHO, than the actual food. Creating discipline, keeping it.
Or, in the case of Lent, deprivation, spiritual sacrifice.

GregoryR

I agree. The fasting rules are about discipline and doing away with luxury items (meat and dairy were seen as luxury items in the ancient world). Another part of this is giving alms. There’s no point in fasting if one isn’t charitable, something that’s sadly overlooked by a great number of my brethren both East and West. Looks like there are a lot of peanut butter sandwiches in my future.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...